Civil War blogging… content delivery or controversy delivery?

UPDATE: **If there are still those who are critical of this post and my “agenda” in doing so, it’s not complicated. Look at my education in the “About Me” tab, at the top of this blog… a masters in history, and a masters in tech comm (with heavy emphasis on Web theory). This post was written from the perspective of a Web theorist. Check out these two sites where bloggers in other “spheres” bring up the exact same thing… here (The Science of Controversial Content) and here (Sixteen Bloggers Talk about Controversy).

Moving into the fifth year of blogging next year, I’ve engaged in both of the above, keeping my focus (primarily) on the American Civil War. In the past two years I think I’ve settled more into the content delivery part of the formula, albeit the content that I deliver can certainly agitate those who have a static/unbending vision of what the war was about, who was participating, and why they were participating. It’s just not the “in-your-face” variety.

Content delivery, on the other hand, seems as if it might be more along the lines of the steady hum you hear in the background, made by electricity running through the wires. You know it’s there, but it doesn’t always draw a crowd. After all, that “steady hum” is much like what we find in many books about the Civil War. The question is asked… “what is original”? It’s history delivered, but it might not be engaging… stirring… enough for the general audience. Still, one shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss content delivery blogging so quickly.

Now understand… no, this isn’t an effort to gently pursuade folks to take more of an interest in content delivery blogs. Hardly. In fact, this post will hardly make a ripple in the pond, to be quite honest. Right or wrong, this is an observation; taking a pause to voice some thoughts.

The thing is… I’ve thought much in the last year about the longevity of posts, and I think content delivery posts trump controversy delivery in that arena.

Controversial posts make a big splash that may feel like tidal waves in the little arena in which they play out, but how far out does the ripple travel?

In a dozen years or so, maybe less, maybe more… if someone takes the time to analyze Civil War blogs of the early 2000s & 2010s, what will they see?

In content delivery, did those particular posts add content to the Web that was otherwise absent? Could any of them… some of them… be considered “tip of the spear” in breaking ground in our understanding of some aspect of history? Did those posts deliver content that could take folks deeper into a topic that was otherwise superficial, for the most part, on the Web? If the blog posts survived some major purge of old sites on the Web, as far forward as 2022 or later, does that content continue to be of value in understanding a particular aspect of the Civil War? Did some content delivery blogs do nothing but deliver the same old content that one would find in a book published ten or twenty years (or more) before the blog posts? Was content delivery, for some through their blogs, though repeating content that has long been out there, a means of a blogger to confront the history on a personal level?

On the other hand, considering controversial blog posts about the Civil War… what is its ability to reach into the future? Will folks be looking back at what was said… the exchanges… and analyze an upheaval of understanding in respect to the war? Will these sort of posts be more reflective of the time in which we, today, lived, and have little application to the time in which the blog posts are analyzed? Will the controversy say more about us (even on a personal level, depending on the manner in which posts or responses are made) or about the war?

I think there is a place for both types of blogging. Perhaps it’s best to see a little of the two types mixed together in the respective blogs. Yet, in blogs that seem to be more controversial, do we see much “giving” or are controversial type bloggers holding back more, perhaps to put something into a book, an article, or something along that nature… something that will be of benefit in another way… monetarily or to advance a person’s place among fellow Civil War historians?

Understand, this is not a criticism, but, in all seriousness… who among bloggers are asking these questions of themselves and the contents of their blogs? I’m just curious…

*I’m going to need to do a h/t to a couple of bloggers with whom I maintain regular contact, via email, for the inspiration behind the post. Yes, I have been thinking about it, but recent exchanges among us brings this post to the surface.

The publishing world has “pop” history which sells, and the “hard” history which usually doesn’t. Pop history is often derided for its watered down scholarship, while the “hard” history books fill the shelves of dedicated students of the topic. Perhaps similar comparisons can be made to Civil War blogging activity. Both types, as you say, have their place. Some folks will live and die by their hit counts. Personally, I’m ambivalent about that metric.

I agree, and each who practice in these respective methods will continue to do so. I think there is an irony, however, in that some who choose not to participate in controversy, will remain below the radar, though they merit more credit than they are receiving.

For those who might try to read into that last comment, don’t try to read too hard. This is not about anyone boo-hooing that they don’t get attention. Rather, this is about the thought process behind blogging, and why controversy gains more attention, though content may end up being the part that is more enduring.

Some content delivery bloggers who add original content to the Web might otherwise be making a little cash on the side by turning the same into an article or book… yet they demonstrate a passion for the art by giving freely of their time… in research and delivery.

I’ll add to that, that it’s curious that the panel/conference events in which Civil War blogging is profiled, seems to neglect considering content delivery blogging. I think there’s a thought-provoking topic, in such public forums, for discussion about the longevity of blog posts, and whether the contributions are enduring or short-term.

To this I’ll add “What he said.” Preaching to the choir here, as you know. I’m aware that a lot of what goes up on my blog is stuff that is normally seen on websites (for lack of a better term) as opposed to web logs. But many of my original content posts have a very, very long life. I’m beginning my 7th year now, but am not sure that means that what I do matters, or if it means that it doesn’t matter to me if it doesn’t matter. Conference panel focus on “editorial” blogs in the Civil War arena is a curious phenomenon, but maybe only curious to me because it seems to exclude blogs like mine.

It is hard, which is why most people don’t do it. Maybe someone’s jealous? Much easier to toss a dead cat into a worship service and watch what happens. ;o) – Kinda like cutting and pasting something controversial into a blog post (Yes, I’m guilty) and then sit back and observe the food fight. I am like a lot of people (old fogies?) who don’t do a lot of “heavy” reading on computer screens. Bothers my eyes and sometimes difficult to “put it down” and come back later. I prefer reading short, quick things in blog posts – it’s the nature of “surfin’ the net” – and then moving on. I still prefer the printed page for serious reading.

That being understood does not lessen the value of the contributions of long “content” type posts. There’s a lot of good content out there for sure, and that type of work certainly adds to the overall knowledge available.

“I prefer reading short, quick things in blog posts – it’s the nature of “surfin’ the net” – and then moving on. I still prefer the printed page for serious reading.”

Absolutely, and some of the best posts are those that can deliver something to chew on, in a relatively reasonable chunk… I think, perhaps 500 words might be a good fit.

You are also correct about the value, whether short or lengthy, though I tend to glaze over when the post becomes too long. Some Web pages are guilty of that, and I think don’t quite grasp the theory of chunking for the Web. I’ve got a post about “chunking” back in here somewhere… I think in 2008.

As I mentioned in another comment, I’m concerned about the accessibility of content in blogs. It seems to get shuffled-in, especially when I blog runs for years. Tags and the like just don’t serve the reader well. I also think that some automated index system (reforming an index with each post) might encourage readers to go through more content and get a better grasp of the blogger’s intent (as opposed to seeing one post and basing opinion of the post and the blogger by the one post alone).

In revisiting your comment, Harry, I’m struck by the “I’m not sure what I do matters” statement. That’s a very genuine concern, and even I have it. I have content in the old Geocities pages that, after they closed shop, has disappeared from the Web. In part, am happy it did, but some of it was lost that was of value. Will the same happen with WordPress? I wonder.

I find the English handbook, “Writers Inc.,” to be very useful in analyzing the elements in writing.
The chart on thought processes gives a list to go by. Simply, the list goes from simple to complex thought processes:

For example, when you talk about people in history, first you want to know who these people are, and how is it relevant to me. When I see your face on the site, and you talk about your great-great-grandfather, then that means something to me. Geography means something also.

An example of comprehension would be this: If there is a letter online that was written from Cross Roads in New Kent County on May 13, 1862, then I would comment that Cross Roads was at the intersection of St. Route 249 and Airport Road, according to county land maps of the period shown in a book about New Kent in 1863. Knowing about Stuart’s Ride around McClellan, etc. would elaborate on one’s understanding.

The applications of this kind of comprehension – relic-hunting, historic markers, story-telling, etc. – are obvious.

I think the opinion pieces in the old newspapers lend themselves to analysis, such as political correctness. One form of analysis is comparison. The debates in congress can be compared to those of today, as can war crimes, etc. The use of horses as modes of transportation is a striking example. The search for good horses and forage was always an issue. That makes one wonder about jeeps and gasoline in modern warfare. Labor issues are another example. A quick search of “slaves” in the official records online gives 3-line results, which can be skimmed in one or two sittings. The quick impression obtained can be compared to the ongoing labor issues throughout the 19th century history, and the related problems of public welfare. Benefits and social welfare are current hot topics, and everybody can relate to them.

Synthesis would consist of putting all the elements together into a production. One must know costume, architecture, transportation, food, relationships, etc. which is no small task. If a person reads a historic novel and feels like they are watching a movie, then that would be an example of a good synthesis.

Evaluation is considered the highest form of thinking in this chart. It is curious that people have a tendency to shy away from being judgmental. This is interesting when we consider that Rhetoric used to be one of the subjects studied in school during the civil war.

On August 30, 1863, Dr. Caspar Henkel’s brother Abram, age 19, says, “I have been reading Quackenbos’ Rhetoric.” His sister Emma, age 16, writes from boarding school Dec. 21, 1863, “I am getting along as usual with my studys, I am so much pleased with Rhetoric, I think it a beautiful study.” Many young people may have never heard the word rhetoric.

The internet is filled with documents from court cases which consist entirely of readable arguments, using lopsided evidence. Since U. S. Courts use the “adversarial” system of justice, the cases are judged based on the best fight. But in writing, a person can just as well use the “inquisitional” system of justice in evaluating any topic, by asking a lot of questions in an effort to learn the whole truth.

Both, for me. At least I hope so. In the long term, if anything from my blogging stands, I hope it’s the content, the original research and analysis that (I hope) contributes new knowledge to the discussion, even if it’s on the micro-level, such as a biographical profile of an individual, or a detailed look at a single document or image.

In my case, a good bit of that content is focused in a single topic area (“black Confederates”), so there’s a certain amount of overlap into the “controversy” side of things there. In those cases, my interest is not so much in convincing folks who already disagree with me, as it is in establishing a reliable source for folks to find who are new to the subject. For that purpose, search engines are the blogger’s friend and ally.

But as you know, doing content right is very time-consuming. I have a half-dozen long, substantive, historical posts sketched out in my head, that I don’t know when I’ll have a chance to sit down and write up. In the meantime, though there’s also an imperative not to let the blog sit idle for too long, to offer up something on a frequent basis. That’s why a number of bloggers do occasional quick posts on news stories (I call such posts “Canister!”; Simpson calls them “News and Notes,” etc.) — because they’re worth noticing, but they don’t require a lot of explanation or raise complex questions. My blog certainly also qualifies as what Harry calls (above) an “editorial” blog, and there’s no question that there are certain individuals and groups that I take satisfaction in poking with a stick on a regular basis.

So I really do think you can do both, although that may be more a self-serving conceit than anything else. I hope like hell one doesn’t have to choose between them, and it’s not an either/or choice the blogger has to make.

I think content built on a controversial topic is, to a degree, an overlap with controversial clogging, however, by controversy, I’m meaning the type of blog posts that seem to shake a fist at some opposition. The subtle weave into an otherwise “content” post employs a different strategy. It challenges some in their beliefs, but not to the point that it becomes vitriolic. At that point, I think the post turns into something more like a WWF contest, and degrades any content that exists… sometimes even changing the intended impact of a post.

You’re dead-on about the time it takes to build a content post, and that’s part of the reason why the number of posts here has decreased over time. On top of that, I’m very much the type that certain content works for me at certain times. I might start a post… but if I don’t finish in the same day, it might not strike me as more demanding on the next day that I pick up the post again. Sometimes I shift entirely from the first post and feel more compelled to write about something else. Drives me crazy, but that’s the way it is.

I don’t think we have to worry about picking which side works for us.,.. content OR controversy… but I just wonder what controversial posts really do besides feed a disagreement, make the hive come to a swarm, and draw and audience. I guess, for some, it’s the best way to get a message out there.

Bummer is new to the blogging community and really became obsessed after several months of visiting certain sites on a daily basis. As a non-academic, almost all posts become a learning experience and spike inspiration to include personal knowledge and experience from a common man’s perspective. The analysis, ebb and flow, is what fascinates this student.

I think that’s you confronting the subject in an open forum. As you work through different subjects, I think you’ll ask questions of events, people, and yourself in relation to the war. Blogging has a range that allows so many dimensions, and certainly the one in which you are engaging. It’s good exercise for the mind! :)

Speaking as an editorial blogger, content will always trump controversy in my book. Sure, controversy can get you traffic, but content is what counts. My voice is purposefully kept off Civil War Notebook, I let the newspaper articles, letters, diaries and biographical sketches speak for themselves.

I started transcribing & posting Civil War era newspaper articles specifically because I didn’t think the hometown newspapers had been mined to their full historical potential. Yes, much of the news is recycled from the New York, Washington and Chicago Newspapers, but there are golden nuggets just waiting to be found, such as the death and funeral of Jonathan Slaymaker of the 2nd Iowa Infantry (see here: http://civilwarnotebook.blogspot.com/search/label/Jonathan%20S%20Slaymaker).

As an Iowa native now residing in Tennessee I have a duel focus, primarily on Iowa soldiers and the battles and battlefields of Tennessee. At this time my focus is on transcribing newspapers from February to May of 1862. But blog posts can wander to where every my curiosity at the moment takes me.

At over 6,200 posts it’s amazing to see some of the posts come together, following regiments and soldiers before, during and after the battle, to the hospitals, home, to other battles or to the grave. I guess you would call it micro-history for lack of a better term.

Controversies will come and go, but content, especially when sourced and noted, will always have value.

I don’t “get” web logging. I mean, since at least 1994 or so, anyone could write up a web page with pretty much whatever content he liked.

I prefer content… but content I’m not likely to have already found elsewhere, or at least tied into that more accessible content.

Sure, controversy will cause me to post a comment more than new content, but so what? For discussion which gets to the heart of a matter, I prefer old-fashioned usenet news groups with a decent news-reader (NewsWatcher or Thoth or…, not the kludgey “Google Groups” interface).

“I don’t “get” web logging. I mean, since at least 1994 or so, anyone could write up a web page with pretty much whatever content he liked.”

Yes and no. I was one of those who started putting things on the Web as early as 1993. However, how often did they add fresh content… even to the point of daily, weekly, or monthly? They were static sites, and frankly, rather stale (and I say this even as one who put content on the Web back then). To top that off, those web pages didn’t allow public feedback in the form of comments. Furthermore, those Web 1.0 sites were written as if they were a form of writing for print, but not on paper. In contrast, blogging is also a form of social engagement via content and it requires different levels of thinking (much more interactive as opposed to “flat”) than 1.0.

“I prefer content… but content I’m not likely to have already found elsewhere, or at least tied into that more accessible content.”

There’s a problem regarding the accessibility of content in blogs, but I’m saving that for another post.

“Sure, controversy will cause me to post a comment more than new content, but so what?”

The “so what” factor in this post is geared more toward the blog writer than the blog reader. Writers approach the subject from different angles and methodologies. Though I ask the question (specifically, of bloggers), I don’t expect that people will change their approach, but I hope what I’m bringing up (whether satisfaction of the blogger comes from delivering posts that are geared for long-term, short-term confrontational, or both) is thought provoking enough for bloggers to pause and think about it… and if that results in nothing more than realizing which category the blog might fall into… works for me.

“For discussion which gets to the heart of a matter, I prefer old-fashioned usenet news groups with a decent news-reader (NewsWatcher or Thoth or…, not the kludgey “Google Groups” interface).”

I don’t agree, especially when it comes to “the heart of the matter”. Blog posts have just as much opportunity to reach into the heart of the matter… but it’s largely dependent on the responses of readers (unless the blogger doesn’t get the engagement he/she was looking for and turns one post into a string of posts, continuing in that pursuit). Also, Usenet discussions tend to get more buried in the Web than blog posts. One active comment inserted into a post revives a post in search engines… the same can’t be said of Usenet groups.

Robert–Not much more to add here, but this is good stuff. Since starting the blog, I have become aware of just how much attention (and hits) one can get if the content if centered on controversial topics. However, I started my blog to explore my research interests in local Civil War history, and to share my findings with whoever cares to look and read. I frequently am surprised at the number of people who come my way to research obscure topics like the Civil War camps in N. Virginia, Chain Bridge, or the Battle of Lewinsville. The numbers may never reach what they would if I spent more time pontificating and less on research and content development. I have come to accept that fact, and I am just content to know that I am making an impact out there in some corner of the Civil War universe.

And a final thought–content blogging really is a labor of love. It takes a lot of time and attention to detail, and like others, I find it difficult to post as frequently as I would like. On the other hand, I like to think that the end result has added to the scholarship out there in some way on some of the topics that I cover. And to top it all off, we don’t get paid to post this content, but are contributing freely. In that sense, content blogging is also a public service.

That is exactly right, Ron… this is a labor of love, and there is some first rate work out there on the Web that, as I mentioned, would merit space in magazines.

Even as a labor of love, however, that awareness of audience has to (for many) impact the quality level of work going into blog posts. I think a lot of us don’t want to repeat something we’ve found elsewhere, but add another perspective… another set of eyes… on a topic. The end result, though I’m not sure everyone thinks about it, is populating the Web with quality content that might not be elesehwere… even in print.

With that in mind, it’s also concerning about the lifespan within the blog; not longevity of content, but with a focus on how long the content will be available to search engines. As I mentioned, in my previous Web life, I had content online via Geocities. It folded. Granted “eocities” is online, but links are broken and not all content was saved. Are bloggers taking an active (enough) role in archiving their own material? What can be done to sustain the life of content on the Web? Will it be a requirement (if we want to preserve what we’ve put online) to backtrack and put our Web content in print? I know I’m sliding off my on topic here, but that’s where this is leading my thinking.

maybe I should have said “confrontational” in lieu of “controversial”.

As I mentioned in this post, I do engage in what might be considered “controversial content”… my posts about Southern Unionists, for example, might rub some folks the wrong way.

Yet, I think the posts make more along the lines of a faint blip on the radar for those who don’t like to hear these sort of things (“Southerners who weren’t Confederates, how can that be!?”).

I can tell, however, that they don’t provoke nearly as much as when I was more confrontational in blog posts (as I said, I used to engage in more of that, especially in the first two years of the blog). It’s easy to see in both the number of hits per post and the clearly disgruntled who make comments when a post really strikes a nerve. Yet, I also stated, in this same post, that by “controversial”, I meant of the “stirring the post, agitative, in-your-face controversy” variety.

I think that was clear enough, but apparently it became swallowed in the overall post. I can see how, but that’s not what I intended.

Regarding those who engage more in confrontational vice content blogging, I think I was also clear.

People will do what they want to do. The post was not meant to change anyone in their direction, but…

…it was a legitimate observation, especially from one who entered blogging, not from my academic work in history, but in my academic work regarding the electronic writing space (to include observations of social engagement).

There are reasons behind those posts of “introspection”, and they are driven from a passion formed from my last time in the halls of academia (please see my “About Me” link in the header, and look at the “Education” section. Take special care to note of the topic of my thesis from 2009: “Blogging as Historians: Considering Interaction, Authority, and New Practices for the Web.”).

Furthermore, regarding the snide remark, “line my pockets and seek the glory I so ardently desire”… that was his read on my suggestion that blogs more centered on confrontational entries seem to be holding back more, in the way of content that might be better reserved (for them) for other venues… whether that be monetarily or in some other way.

Regarding the remark “I’m perfectly comfortable with what I do and I do my best to try not to judge why others blog”.

Good for him.

“… especially when supposed “content” blogs engage in controversy, especially by talking about “controversy” blogs (largely as a form of “othering”). Ah, irony.”

Ah, and this comment…

“In truth, of course, this entire blog entry is a clever attempt to create controversy to drive up readership and initiate nasty exchanges, which will in turn shed much heat and little light.”

Actually, to Brooks, perhaps, but to me… as I just stated, my objective in writing the post was more from the perspective of a Web theorist than historian. And by the way, I don’t obsess on numbers. There was a time, but no more. If someone reads what I write, great. If other folks do not… that’s just the way it is.

If Brooks’ post is an example of the way others read this post, then I would welcome folks to read again, keeping in mind (as I just said) that subject matter relating to history is not my only reason for blogging. Rather, it’s also to look at blogging from another angle, and that it clearly comes from the other half of my graduate education. With that in mind, it seems rather entertaining that I appear to have struck a nerve so much as to merit a somewhat snarky blog post in response.

No matter… like I said from the beginning, ultimately, my post will make very little of a ripple anyway, even if narrowed down to just the Civil War blogosphere.

Bummer is fascinated and enjoys all perspectives on the blogs frequented. Sometimes a feeling of intimidation is experienced, at the level of one up-manship that is exhibited. However, whether it is content, controversy or confrontation, it’s all taken in stride and becomes just part of the learning experience.

Robert – This is a very good post and I agree with a lot of what you write here. I, no doubt, fall into the “confrontational” camp – though I believe I also provide a fair amount of content as well. I was not quite as confrontational early on. I posted infrequently and on rather mundane topics. I was “drawn” into the confrontational arena, in large measure, by another blogger (doesn’t matter who). In other words, someone else picked a fight and I obliged. Blame it on my Scots-Irish ancestry.

I have also noticed that my hits go up quite a bit when I write something confrontational. However, that really is not what motivates me. Some won’t believe me, but I would actually prefer to write about the “mundane” – but, again, the Scots-Irish blood keeps intruding. I am in complete agreement with you on this: “If someone reads what I write, great. If other folks do not… that’s just the way it is.” You and I don’t always agree, but I do believe you’re sincere about that. As someone once said, “writers write because they have to.”

Some seem much more obsessed with confrontation (yeah, I know – some will point at me but, again, I didn’t start out that way), than others.

My more confrontational approach accelerated when I became more aware of the “anti-Confederate” shrills in the blogosphere. I also experienced misinformed attacks on my book about Stonewall Jackson which prompted me to respond, though someone much wiser suggested I not do so.

“Writers write because they have to.” I feel it’s something deeper that compels me… maybe it’s just because I have been writing for so darn long! :)

The whole idea of confrontation is a double-edge sword. Yes, numbers increase, comments increase (sometimes becoming vitriolic), but, honestly, I am of the mind that there’s some deeper considerations. The web, obviously, has given folks who might never have had a voice otherwise, a public platform. That platform is fed by comments and visitors, which satisfies the blogger. Now, when a person does not raise an eyebrow from a potential opponent to theory or whatever, escalation is nominal and the ability to climb on the radars of others has potential limits. Recognizing, and most certainly attacking another not only draws a crowd, but has the potential of giving that otherwise quiet person (or organization) an even larger platform.

I’ve shifted to being much heavier in content because it is more first-line data, as opposed to opinion. Albeit, I give opinion of data.

For what it’s worth, that’s the direction in which I’m thinking, in regard to “confrontational blogging”. I’ll add to that, there are some of the opinion that regular doses of confrontation degrades the overall Civil War blogosphere. Whether that’s true or not, well… maybe it’s a matter of opinion. Some, I’m sure, believe that confrontation is a move away from the otherwise boring and mundane. I think there are just different schools of thought, but I truly ask myself about the long-term value. I also think… is this something that I would want my kids to see (even years down the road)? . Is this a side of me that doesn’t otherwise exist, except in social exchanges on the Web. I just don’t feel good about that.

This has been a fascinating exercise to see play out, both here and on Crossroads. I can certainly identify with my fellow bloggers who question if what they do really matters. I’m also amazed at how passive-aggressive we can be towards each other (Do we kick the proverbial ball of knowledge farther down the road when we’re busy kicking each other in the balls? Is that even the point of what we’re doing?) Personally, I think the controversy/commentary/whatever blogs get tedious after a while. We can only be zealous for so long. That’s why I’m doing more First World War stuff now…nobody goes bonkers and assassinates your character over the Second Battle of the Marne ;-)

I know… it does nothing to advance history. Maybe I should write my next post with the title, “Thanks for participating in my study of social interaction in a blogosphere”, followed by the comment “The results are exactly what I predicted.” Fact of the matter is, it was an observation voiced in a post, and from the angle of a Web theorist. Some agree, some don’t. I think my discussion with Kevin showed it could be discussed. It apparently bothered someone else, however, though it wasn’t intended to be personal. So much for scientific observations. Reactions speak louder than words. Back to business… whether that be discussing the Civil War or the theories behind blogging. Thanks for commenting, Jimmy.

Controversy isn’t always a bad thing if it involves people exploring a topic they have strong (and opposite) opinions on. For me it gets down to whether you are attempting to have a conversation or to stick a finger in the other fellow’s eye for sport. It is a difficult thing to, as the old cliche goes, disagree without being disagreeable.

Not to change the topic, but in looking at your links I notice you participate in the HMDB project and just wanted to say thank you for your work there and how much pleasure I’ve gotten from roaming about in its entries. The photos and comments are great, and having geographic coordinates for the markers is a nice addition. I’ve spent quite a bit of time reading HMDB with Google Earth up in the background. Of the historical sites I visit, HMDB is one of a handful I think of as indispensable. If you wanted to make a case for content blogs, the Historical Marker Database would be a great “Exhibit A”.

Thanks for taking the time to comment. I agree that controversy isn’t always a bad thing, it’s the confrontational aspect that I question more. Should have worded the title to that effect.

I’ve enjoyed helping with HMDB by posting new signs, photos, links, etc. Haven’t done many lately (seem to have run out of possibilities in my area), but always like to reference back to them. Fantastic project in which I had the chance to offer a little help. Glad I could. Thanks for the remarks. I’m sure Craig will appreciate them also.

Personally though I agree with the idea that we create our own blog experience by simply selecting which ones to read (as Simpson alluded to) I do think historians should protect their field and call out those blogs whom they feel cloud historical truth; much like many of you have done with the Black Confederate myth, Lost Cause, ect.

On a side note, the controversy (whatever you want to call it) blog that I used to run frankly cost me a bit of hassle and hence I gave it up. Though I felt I was defending something important, it became not worth it anymore.

Now I run a humble little content Civil War blog that no one reads (at least not on the scale as my other site)…

I agree. I used to (within the first two, maybe three years) engage in more confrontational-like posts, and, frankly, at times it could be rather exhausting. I like the content-driven approach. It can be laced with some controversy, but I don’t think anything I’ve written in quite some time has been confrontational.

Thanks also regarding the comment about the series of posts. I appreciate it.

I consider pretty most Civil War blogs content driven. We all post something once and a while, big deal. For example, Kevin Levin’s blog is mainly content driven it is only controversial (to some) when he is defending his field of expertise as a historian. I enjoy your blog Robert visit it often. Take care.

[…] Simpson questioned Robert Moore’s classification of Civil War blogs into “content blogs” and “controversy blogs&#822…, I commented, and Brooks raised some questions both in the comments section and in a follow-up post […]